Sin and Salvation
It is this simple. We are saved through Christ’s life and subsequent death on the cross. Jesus did not die for us—anyone can die for something, but to LIVE for something: WOW! That in and of itself is divine. The death is only meaningful if the life was worth knowing about! There is suffering and evil in the world, and the church should not try to explain how they were created. Suffering and evil just exist, and we must deal with them. We can provide new insights, we can remind people of philosophical and moral ideals, but pastors should not be in the absolute answer business but rather in the questions and insight business.
“The church is not in the morals business. The world is in the morals business… and it has done a fine job of it, all things considered. The history of the world's moral codes is a monument to the labors of many philosophers, and it is a monument of striking unity and beauty. She is not in the business of telling the world what's right and wrong so that it can do good and avoid evil. She is in the business of offering, to a world which knows all about that tiresome subject, forgiveness for its chronic unwillingness to take its own advice…But the minute she even hints that morals, and not forgiveness, is the name of her game, she instantly corrupts the Gospel and runs headlong into blatant nonsense. Then the church becomes, not Ms. Forgiven Sinner, but Ms. Right and Christianity becomes the good guys in here versus the bad guys out there. Which, of course, is pure garbage for the church is nothing but the world under the sign of baptism.” (Capon, Hunting the Divine Fox 132-133).
If grace is true and to be trusted, we must have faith in it. We cannot worry that this will lead to all sorts of permissiveness and such open minds that our collective brains will fall out. We are to take the example of the parable of the prodigal son. Jesus tells us that the son gets a kiss instead of a lecture, a party instead of probation. By bringing in the elder brother at the end of the story and having him raise objections Jesus gives a great example to the church. The brother is angry about the party. He complains that his father is lowering standards and ignoring virtue—that music, dancing, and a fattened calf are, in effect, just so many permissions to break the law. And to that, Jesus has the father say only one thing: “Cut that out! We’re not playing good boys and bad boys anymore. Your brother was dead and he’s alive again. The name of the game from now on is resurrection, not bookkeeping.”
This view renders all saved through Christ period. I view all need for justification as largely a human need of reassurance. The church provides this but keeps this in check by saying to the concerned parishioner “Yes, you’re saved in Christ and given the grace of God, just like everyone else.” The church is to make no distinction or try to step into God’s role and come up with formulas as to figure out who is in heaven and who isn’t. As far as the church is concerned, everyone is getting into heaven because of Christ’s saving life and this is the Good News to be preached to the world. The church is at its best when it’s in a Universalist mindset. What God has done through the incarnation and the death and resurrection of Jesus conquers and saves all (NO Limited Atonement!). However, there is still room for a hell, which would be a disbelief and self-exile from God’s grace. Jesus came for the sick, not for the healthy (Mark 2:17), so it is a mistake to think that everyone will come through the doors of the church. That doesn’t mean the church should keep quiet, but instead proclaim without anxiety and with confidence.
Showing posts with label original sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label original sin. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Crisis (Elevator Version)
i used to think people were inherently capable of more good than they are. some recent experiences brought this to mind. i no longer believe in altruism. i think at some level, it all comes from a sense of self... some selfish notion is at play.
this isn't inherently evil nor is it inherently good. however, it usually leads to bad and if unchecked, even the seemingly good acts are bad.
does this come from original sin? no. it's how we're built. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. so if God created and claimed creation was good, then there was an opposite reaction which was evil. or think of it this way, a big light casts a big shadow. same with humans, we are beings of light and shadow, it's just easier to cultivate the shadow side.
i think a big mistake would be to deny the inherent evil that exists in humans but it's also another mistake to say the inherent good is not there either. people put bullets into other humans and they also jump in front of bullets for one another too. to say that this is because someone ate a fruit or talked to a snake is craziness. it's a mistake to think about why there is evil in the world or that there ever was a perfect earth. there is and has always been suffering. it's how you respond to it that counts.
this isn't inherently evil nor is it inherently good. however, it usually leads to bad and if unchecked, even the seemingly good acts are bad.
does this come from original sin? no. it's how we're built. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. so if God created and claimed creation was good, then there was an opposite reaction which was evil. or think of it this way, a big light casts a big shadow. same with humans, we are beings of light and shadow, it's just easier to cultivate the shadow side.
i think a big mistake would be to deny the inherent evil that exists in humans but it's also another mistake to say the inherent good is not there either. people put bullets into other humans and they also jump in front of bullets for one another too. to say that this is because someone ate a fruit or talked to a snake is craziness. it's a mistake to think about why there is evil in the world or that there ever was a perfect earth. there is and has always been suffering. it's how you respond to it that counts.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Existential Crisis
originally written before the birth of Eve.. updated today, but i think it still serves... read and comment please!
the definition: Existential Crisis: a perceived sense of harsh confrontation experienced when a human confronts questions of existence and a change in one’s subjective perception their relation to their world.
the history: When i came into seminary i largely held a Palagian view of humanity.. mainly that had capacity to do good through reason and logic. when confronted with the truth, a person would adjust and change accordingly.
the opposite view of this is Augustine, who's view christianity has largely adopted, which is: argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses.
Pelagius argued that Augustine's doctrine that humans went to hell for doing what they could not avoid (sin) was tantamount to the Manichean belief in fatalism and predestination, and took away all of mankind's free will. Pelagius and his followers saw remnants of this fatalistic belief in Augustine's teachings on the Fall of Adam, which was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began. Their view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can freely choose to obey God's commandments.
the problem:: recent events have shown me that people are happy to be stuck in their situation... some people won't choose to get out of the situtation when the evidence is presented to them as they are comfortable with the pain. sort of like "the devil i know is better than the one i don't" sort of deal. this is highly frustrating. my high view of humanity has taken a large hit.. reason and logic won't always win the day.
it was pointed out to me by two great friends that i'm largely thinking of this because i'm bringing a child into the world. i'm pondering what sort of world this is. what is the core nature of humanity?
where I'm at now: I think a balance needs to be struck. Humans are limited and sin is a very real and universal state of humankind. I can see why one would believe the doctrine of original sin but I feel that this invites too many illogical support systems that need to happen. First a semi-literal interpretation of scripture is needed and belief in a shalomic state of being was intended. There had to have been a “garden” in which to fall from. This is inconsistent with science and serves no purpose. All it does is try to fit God into a human notion of good.
However, I’m not as confident as Pelagius was in human freedom and capacity to do good. I think humans do good when it serves their self-interests or interests of their group. This is not inherently sinful as Augustine would have insisted, but it does need some work. We need to see how we are connected to everything! We are entangled in relationships with other humans as well as our environment and animals that exist in that ecosystem. We are quantum entangled on a molecular level as well.
Quantum entanglement is a possible property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations.
In short, we need to take our biological response for self and group-preservation and widen it to incorporate those who do not look or act like us.
Can Original Sin serve today? I don’t see how it can; there are too many additions one must add onto this doctrine to make it scientifically viable. It simply doesn’t fit with biology or physics. It makes for a good story and a great logical set up for the need for Jesus in a closed model, but once science enters into the picture, the story falls apart.
more research must be done... but i cannot hold that Eve is just as sinful as me... i mean doesn't my experience count for nothing?! i got 27 years on the kid! she's no more sinful than a snowflake. she will be living in a world where it's easy to learn this behavior.... so what i guess it boils down to is Freedom is a Pain in the Ass.
the definition: Existential Crisis: a perceived sense of harsh confrontation experienced when a human confronts questions of existence and a change in one’s subjective perception their relation to their world.
the history: When i came into seminary i largely held a Palagian view of humanity.. mainly that had capacity to do good through reason and logic. when confronted with the truth, a person would adjust and change accordingly.
the opposite view of this is Augustine, who's view christianity has largely adopted, which is: argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses.
Pelagius argued that Augustine's doctrine that humans went to hell for doing what they could not avoid (sin) was tantamount to the Manichean belief in fatalism and predestination, and took away all of mankind's free will. Pelagius and his followers saw remnants of this fatalistic belief in Augustine's teachings on the Fall of Adam, which was not a settled doctrine at the time the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began. Their view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that we can freely choose to obey God's commandments.
the problem:: recent events have shown me that people are happy to be stuck in their situation... some people won't choose to get out of the situtation when the evidence is presented to them as they are comfortable with the pain. sort of like "the devil i know is better than the one i don't" sort of deal. this is highly frustrating. my high view of humanity has taken a large hit.. reason and logic won't always win the day.
it was pointed out to me by two great friends that i'm largely thinking of this because i'm bringing a child into the world. i'm pondering what sort of world this is. what is the core nature of humanity?
where I'm at now: I think a balance needs to be struck. Humans are limited and sin is a very real and universal state of humankind. I can see why one would believe the doctrine of original sin but I feel that this invites too many illogical support systems that need to happen. First a semi-literal interpretation of scripture is needed and belief in a shalomic state of being was intended. There had to have been a “garden” in which to fall from. This is inconsistent with science and serves no purpose. All it does is try to fit God into a human notion of good.
However, I’m not as confident as Pelagius was in human freedom and capacity to do good. I think humans do good when it serves their self-interests or interests of their group. This is not inherently sinful as Augustine would have insisted, but it does need some work. We need to see how we are connected to everything! We are entangled in relationships with other humans as well as our environment and animals that exist in that ecosystem. We are quantum entangled on a molecular level as well.
Quantum entanglement is a possible property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart — even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This interconnection leads to non-classical correlations between observable physical properties of remote systems, often referred to as nonlocal correlations.
In short, we need to take our biological response for self and group-preservation and widen it to incorporate those who do not look or act like us.
Can Original Sin serve today? I don’t see how it can; there are too many additions one must add onto this doctrine to make it scientifically viable. It simply doesn’t fit with biology or physics. It makes for a good story and a great logical set up for the need for Jesus in a closed model, but once science enters into the picture, the story falls apart.
more research must be done... but i cannot hold that Eve is just as sinful as me... i mean doesn't my experience count for nothing?! i got 27 years on the kid! she's no more sinful than a snowflake. she will be living in a world where it's easy to learn this behavior.... so what i guess it boils down to is Freedom is a Pain in the Ass.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Free Will?
as discussion on Jason's Post: Mistakes and Evil
“I tend to think free will is an absolute truth” SVS
i think i tend to agree… however, our choices are restricted, both consciously (i.e., by not doing things that are societally unacceptable but psychologically we could) and subconsciously, through psychological conditioning and upbringing, as well as cultural pressure, instinctive pressure, etc.
All that said, determinism’s thesis isn’t empirically demonstrable (or at least, it’s extremely difficult to demonstrate it), so I personally prefer to think of our ability to make decisions as heavily constrained, but still nominally free (i.e., not determined in a deterministic way, meaning, one could make a choice other than the one they made in a particular set of circumstances). to make things perfectly clear, humans are rather unpredictable in any given circumstance
“evil is from the heart of humanity” SVS
and the question then becomes how did it get there? i can’t believe in orignal sin… my take is more Eastern Orthodox that we are born into a world where sin is already present.. plus our evolutionary nature has a build in self-preservation response. i’ll have to post this on my blog as it’s something i’ve been working on in the past few weeks in my doctrine class… pluses and minuses of the doctrine of original sin, who was right Augustine or Palagian? such like things… these are the things one does while waiting on a child to be born
“Free will………. Bah Humbug… So rather than me having my own free will, I like to think its a collect will that determines our outcomes” T4T
and yet we humans can really chuck off all of these notions and run nakkid into the forest.. something completely unexpected and nonpredetermined. or maybe it was. causality is a messy, messy thing. chicken or the egg? largely we’ll find it’s the common ancestor!
but i like the idea of a collective will. we have that! sometimes it’s good “all men are created equal… life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” and all that jazz and sometimes it’s bad “jim crow and segregation.” i think if we throw in some divine will and try to follow that (namely we’re all connected and must live in harmony with our differences!) we’ll be in a better state.. yet we are still free within limitations. and sometimes even within the limitations a truly creative person can come up with new ways of continue’n.
as Erasmus of Rotterdamn stated ": The Bible is filled with God’s demands and there is an implied assumption that human will can choose for or against God. If there is an ought from God there must be a can from humans." (On The Freedom of the Will)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)